linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] block atomic writes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <71063aee-8ba9-4a02-8c09-9b3a9982f6e0@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:11:38 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Dave Chinner
 <david@...morbit.com>,
        axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, sagi@...mberg.me,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
        jack@...e.cz, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, bvanassche@....org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] block atomic writes


> 
>>> I think this still needs a check if the fs needs alignment for
>>> atomic writes at all. i.e.
>>>
>>> struct statx statx;
>>> struct fsxattr fsxattr;
>>> int fd = open('/foofile', O_RDWR | O_DIRECT);
>>>
>>> ioctl(fd, FS_IOC_GETXATTR, &fsxattr);
>>> statx(fd, "", AT_EMPTY_PATH, STATX_ALL | STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC, &statx);
>>> if (statx.stx_atomic_write_unit_max < 16384) {
>>> 	bailout();
>>> }
>>
>> How could this value be >= 16384 initially? Would it be from pre-configured
>> FS alignment, like XFS RT extsize? Or is this from some special CoW-based
>> atomic write support? Or FS block size of 16384?
> 
> Sorry, this check should not be here at all, we should only check it
> later.
> 
>> Incidentally, for consistency only setting FS_XFLAG_WRITE_ATOMIC will lead
>> to FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE being set. So until FS_XFLAG_WRITE_ATOMIC is set
>> would it make sense to have statx return 0 for STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC.
> 
> True.  We might need to report the limits even without that, though.

Could we just error the SETXATTR ioctl when FS_XFLAG_FORCEALIGN is not 
set (and it is required)? The problem is that ioctl reports -EINVAL for 
any such errors, so hard for the user to know the issue...

Thanks,
John